Cro Crop saved by Wing Chun?

[kung fu fighter]

Hey Hunt,

I think you are right on the money brother, covering with a kwan sao would have been the only option to save Crocop in that situation, even though I think he would have lost his balance because his stance was not structurely sound to take the impact unless he applied it with the pivot step which i don't think he trains. Gonzaga setup timing was right on. He pressured crocop not giving him distance and timing to set up anything. I used wing chun with a similar strategy when i fought in san shou competitions against thai style fighters. I would eat up there space, forcing them to attack and then i would counter them, or they would back up to try to access the situation, which kept them on the defensive

I think the results would be similar in a rematch between these two, if crocop doesn't change the way he fights.

Navin

[SevenStar]

For those that watched the recent UFC and saw Cro Crop get knocked out by a round kick to the head. There is a basic wing chun concept or method that may have saved him. Of course nothing is 100% and nothing works all the time.

I haven't read this thread yet, but I am betting someone is gonna say gan sau...

[SevenStar]

...as for entertaining the 'how would WC have saved him?' question, double guan sau's, advancing inside the kicking arc, and punches/elbows to finish.

I knew it...

[t_niehoff]

Hmmm, good point...

Terrence?

KF, sorry, I miss these sometimes in the morass of verbal abuse.

My view is that we will always do or try to do something in response to what our opponent does. But that isn't the case of when he does technique A and you do technique B -- the example given of, he shoots, you sprawl -- because there is more to it than that. That oversimplifies the combative situation and what you need to solve it. As I see it, the shoot from the outside is part of a a whole game (at least, good wrestlers will have a complete takedown game), and you can't defeat a game with a technique; you defeat a game with a game. The shoot is part of that game. If I am out of range and he shoots, I'm not going to sprawl; if I have a wh1zzer, I'm not going to sprawl, etc. A game, as I am referring to it, is a set of skills. You learn the skills, develop the skills, and put together your own individual game. Just like dealing with the shoot requires a game, escaping from the bottom when on the ground requires a game (the answer to side mount isn't just elbow escape, though that is an element). Similarly, dealing with attacks from the outside is a game.

[Knifefighter]

Similarly, dealing with attacks from the outside is a game.

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?

[hunt1]

Edmund I dont know where to begin to throw out a drill without ever trying it leads me to suspect you are a true believer.

The drill is very real. You only are dealing with punches that can hurt you. Most people like to deal with punchs that are from long distance or not done with real intent. You should try to work with a decent boxer. Boxing punches are not Leung Ting arrow punches. A jab moves at different angles and if its close enough to do damage time for body movement to save you is minimal. The hook that i am referring too is thrown off the jab it is extremely tight and will remove your head if coming from a person with skill. Boxers have been dealing with jabs for a long time and their solution is cover not parry. Also parry requires you to chase hands.

A tried and true fighting stratagy is to through long range jabs to get the person to reach out and parry so you can take advantage of the gap the leave when they try to parry.

[hunt1]

MR Punch, yes SAm was one of my teachers too. no harm done your suggestions are good ones. You are right communication is the key and it is very hard on a forum.

Covering for me begins with the fact that you cannot effectively block. Blocking requires you to see something calculate its direction speed etc and then get the proper weapon to respond. Blocking keeps you working at the time and pace of the other person. The key to covering is awarness. Of yourself and what areas are open and your opponent and where he can attack from. For example if he is facing you with a lead leg forward then a side step to the outside of the lead leg protects half of your body so I use a bil to cover high and Wu mid section to cover the side of my body that could be attacked. i am sure you have been through this stuff. Covering just comes down to knowing where you are weak and where the opponent can most easily attack. For me The knofe form teaches most of the standard covering methods. if yoiu can move forward and into a weapon you can do it unarmed.

[t_niehoff]

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?

That is part of it, and I don't deny that takes place. There is an old saying about how "common things occur commonly" -- and because certain things (combative problems) are common, so too are the answers. My view is, however, that the combative environment (as is most sport environments) is more complex than to permit a " tech A works against tech B" view since there will always be other factors (than just technique) involved, and those often effect outcome.

Also, I see technique not as something that stands alone but as a means of learning/developing skills -- technique being but an example or snapshot of the skill in action. Sprawling, like most other things, I see as a skill (you can show many different examples of sprawling technique and they may all look somewhat different). Similarly, a jab is a technique but being able to jab effectively (jabbing?) is a skill (each jab or technique is but one example of the skill in action). So what it comes down to is really skills vs. skills (or game vs. game). Does this make sense to you?

[Edmund]

Most people like to deal with punchs that are from long distance or not done with real intent. You should try to work with a decent boxer.

LOL. Seems like you're attacking my creds.

Boxers have been dealing with jabs for a long time and their solution is cover not parry.

That's funny. Because well before I ever started WC when I was training MT under Paul Briggs (current #1 WBC boxing light heavyweight contender ), parrying the punch was the first punch defence taught. And it's for a real good reason. You don't want your arms wandering up too high. It exposes your body.

We did plenty of boxing obviously but I guess you trained with better guys.

Also parry requires you to chase hands.

You don't have to chase their hands at all. That's when you completely fail to do it properly. You'd be swatting at flies basically. That's the wrong way to do it and against the basic theory of WC or boxing or MT.

A tried and true fighting stratagy is to through long range jabs to get the person to reach out and parry so you can take advantage of the gap the leave when they try to parry.

Reaching out is wrong too.

As I said very plainly before: The idea is to cover the area of your head with your hand.

[AmanuJRY]

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?

Answer = yes.

In the same manner as one learns chi sau and then applies it to his/her own game.

[stricker]

... parrying the punch was the first punch defence taught. And it's for a real good reason.

agreed about a basic parry/pak. the boxing/thai hands are different to wing chun though as the guard position is higher and closer to the face/body than wing chun man/wu...

the boxing/mt parry uses no more than a few inches movement and is right close to the face. that way you're not reaching and asking to get nailed by a double-jab, jab-cross, whatever.

=> just re-read your post after posting, yeah you covered all this

my guess is the wing chun answer to this is that the pak sao becomes a palm strike if it doesnt find the punch (also means follow the right geometrry, centerline etc)

also what i found interesting is that thai boxing has a few parries/hand movements similar to wing chun (e.g. kao sao) a lot of the time while kicking/knee-ing or going to clinch. the main difference is the basic structure of the art, how the hands move from the basic guard position.

(note about teaching method: the thai boxers etc dont label every shape pak, kao, fook, etc they just say parry it out, in, up, across, push this, pull that etc. getting it to work then comes from practice and working it out not following x=a*b+c)

[stricker]

"I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement). " (TN)


TOTAL AND COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED BULL5HIT...written by a moron who doesn't know anything about fighting - but who is trying to pass himself off as some sort of an expert.

OF COURSE....EVERY GOOD FIGHTER...will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations....ie.- you shoot...AND I SPRAWL. (Okay, now let's try that again. And again. And one more time, thank you!)

This is how you train effectively.

What a friggin' moron.

IN FACT, I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT TN'S POSTS ARE JUST AN EXERCISE IN TRYING TO SEE HOW FAR HE CAN THROW DOUBLE-SPEAK OUT AT PEOPLE AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

How far will people let him go before they push back on his delusional envelope?

first of all calling people morons bull****ters etc and all that **** is making you look like a chump mate, knock it off...

anyway lets take shoot and sprawl drills.

you could drill sprawl vs shoot or you could drill take the man down vs dont get taken down

first is technique vs technique, second is skill versus skill. Terence, is that what you're getting at?

the skill-drill vs technique-drill thing is interesting. i remember my first mma training session being told when the timer went to "get double-underhooks". the thing is i wasnt taught any techniques to do so. if i'd have asked "what techniques should i use" i would have got the answer "do anything you want just get underhooks". techniques come later.

so you drill a skill, not a technique.

of course the obvious answer is mix both but its interesting to say well which direction does the progression go in, start with open drills and find what needs to be technique drilled, or drill techniques then open it up to closer to sparring... biiig diference in approach.

also ive gotta say i find it really interesting finding out what comes out of myself under pressure, is it techniques i've drilled in, or skills ive developed in more open drills/sparring. go fight and find out for yourself

[Edmund]

agreed about a basic parry/pak. the boxing/thai hands are different to wing chun though as the guard position is higher and closer to the face/body than wing chun man/wu...

Kinda dependant on who you learn MT from AND who you learn WC from.

My recent MT coach, Yuttana Wongbandue, didn't advocate holding the hands above the height of the face or that close to the head. It prevents you from punching with power or seeing what's going on.

It is a compromise between being covered and being able to attack.

the boxing/mt parry uses no more than a few inches movement and is right close to the face. that way you're not reaching and asking to get nailed by a double-jab, jab-cross, whatever.

=> just re-read your post after posting, yeah you covered all this

my guess is the wing chun answer to this is that the pak sao becomes a palm strike if it doesnt find the punch (also means follow the right geometrry, centerline etc)

Hmm. Interesting idea. Still sound like your extending your arm though.

I don't see why the WC answer *has* to be any different. I wasn't taught anything that complicated in WC: Simple parries and few inches of movement are good enough.

also what i found interesting is that thai boxing has a few parries/hand movements similar to wing chun (e.g. kao sao) a lot of the time while kicking/knee-ing or going to clinch. the main difference is the basic structure of the art, how the hands move from the basic guard position.

True. I think that difference is due to the kicking/kneeing and clinching.

(note about teaching method: the thai boxers etc dont label every shape pak, kao, fook, etc they just say parry it out, in, up, across, push this, pull that etc. getting it to work then comes from practice and working it out not following x=a*b+c)

The really good coaches can explain everything as well IMHO. It's not just left to the student to figure it out. e.g. "Don't reach out to parry. You get punched."

[Edmund]

Back on the Crocop/Gonzaga fight:
I watched it again and it was *just* as Joe Rogan commentated that Crocop was looking tentative that Gonzaga kicked his head off. He really was spot on with that comment. Crocop was sort of collecting himself and taking a breath then he just wandered closer into kicking range without having much of anything in mind.

Gonzaga probably spotted that as well and threw his best kick.

[t_niehoff]

Answer = yes.

In the same manner as one learns chi sau and then applies it to his/her own game.

Actually, the answer is "sort of". What I am saying is that in my view technique is taught as an example of a skill in action (it's a snapshot of skill), and performance of the skill is called technique. The objective is to learn and develop that skill; learning/practing technique is just a step toward that objective. In open skill activities, like fighting or tennis, everything we do (technique) has to be continually modified, adjusted, and adaptaed to the changing situation/environment. So, for example, every forehand drive is different, and you are not just doing the same technique every time you hit a forehand, but you are using the same skill. Each forehand is a slightly different technique (example of the performance of the skill). In that way, when the ball comes to your forehand side, you hit a forehand but as a player you are not thinking in terms of technique A to counter technique B -- you are thinking in terms of hitting the ball (the skill). Similarly, when someone shoots, I don't think good grapplers think in terms of use sprawl to counter shoot but more along the lines of stop his takedown (hit the ball).

With regard to chi sao, I see it as a platform (its own game) to learn certain skills. But those skills will not transfer directly from that game (chi sao) into another, very different game (fighting) without some significant modification and tweaking -- which can only come through taking those skills and putting them into that different game (fighting) and training them.